> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
> I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in
> nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier space
> proves to fall short.
There's an even better reason: to allow migration to new syntax (or new
namespaces) for each type of name. Consider: it's easier to start deployment
of a split in an existing namespace if both new namespaces have the same
syntax as the original one. It minimizes the number of things you have to
change, and also the cost of deployment, which makes it more likely you can
get a positive cost/benefit on the change - without which the deployment will
never happen. Once the split is more-or-less complete, then you can start to
think about changing the syntax, or having a new (parallel in function)
namespace.
Or, at least, that's my theory - and I'm sticking to it! :-)
> Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if we don't need a
> hierarchy from the start.
Hierarchy in the names in the namespaces, or a hierarchy _of_ namespaces?
Sorry, wasn't quite clear from your brief comment.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
